We find that ion inducedbinary nucleation proceeds at a significant rate in the cooltemperatures of the free troposphere at atmospheric concentrationsof sulphuric acid, and may be an important process when ternaryvapour concentrations are low.

A significant rate still does not make it a sufficient rate. It could be an important process in relation to the smaller amount of nucliation represented by that mechanism.

Quote:

However, the fraction of these freshly nucleated particles that grow tosufficient sizes to seed cloud droplets, as well as the role of organicvapours in the nucleation and growth processes, remain open questionsexperimentally.

Yes, meaning the growth of this insufficient number of nuclei ito the size to seed cloud droplets is not guaranteed and that number may decrease.

Quote:

Because the primary source of ions in the globaltroposphere is galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), their role in atmosphericnucleation is of considerable interest as a possible physical mechanismfor climate variability caused by the Sun

Yes, it is of interest, whcih is a major reason why the experiment was undertaken in the first place. That still does not change the fact the rate was insufficient to account for the observed nucliation.

Quote:

That's a little bit different than what you are trying to portray, Wayne.

No, you are just ignoring the statements that you dislike.

Quote:

Note that the Boundary layer could be as low as a few meters from the surface, but it is largely dependent on the local meteorology. Low Clouds can be as high as 6,500-8,000 feet, so GCR induced ionization could play a prominent role in the formation of low clouds in the troposphere, as hypothesized by Svensmark.

Odd you left out this portion of the statement following "could be as low as a few meters from the surface to several kilometres"

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

A significant rate still does not make it a sufficient rate. It could be an important process in relation to the smaller amount of nucliation represented by that mechanism.

Where does it say that this rate is not sufficient enough to account for a significant portion of observed nucleation?

Quote:

Yes, meaning the growth of this insufficient number of nuclei ito the size to seed cloud droplets is not guaranteed and that number may decrease.

Where does it say that this rate is not sufficient enough to account for a significant portion of observed nucleation?

Just because ions don't account for ALL of the nucleation, does not mean that they do not have a significant impact, as the conclusions of the paper stated:

Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady productionof new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observationsbecause of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking placeand could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.

Not necessarily, as until there is some evidence of an effect there is no connection to add uncertainty.

So the Forbush Decreases probably impacting precipitation, the Diurnal Temperature Range impacts, the remarkable correlation with cloud cover and temperature, and the CERN experiments do not warrant uncertainty?

Quote:

No, the uncertainties in your preferred hypothesis start with the lack of evidence for a mechanism, which is not the case with GHG.

So where is the evidence that Greenhouse Gases are causing Global Warming?

Quote:

Actually, there is. The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere coupled with the evidence of how GHGs work gives a theory supported by measurements .... unlike the cosmic ray mechanisms.

Ummm, and where's the evidence that they are causing Global Warming?

I also sense a double standard brewing over here...

Quote:

The results of the CERN experiments which showed an insufficient level of nucliation for observed climate impact even with the multiplication factors included.

Current global warming commonly is attributed to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (3). However, geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model. The current warm period is thought to have not reached the level of warmth of the previous warm period (A.D. 800-1200), when the Vikings raised wheat and livestock in Greenland. Therefore, the magnitude of the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable. The contribution of solar-output variations to climate change may be significant.

From the frequencies of sunspot and aurora sightings, abundance of carbon-14 in the rings of long-lived trees, and beryllium-10 in the annual ice layers of polar ice cores, we have reconstructed the history of a variable Sun. In the last 1,800 years, the Sun has gone through nine cycles of changes in brightness. While these long-term variations account for less than 1%of the total irradiance, there is clear evidence that they affect the Earth's climate.

Some studies indicate that the solar modulation of galactic cosmic ray (GCR) particles has profound consequences for Earth's climate system. A corollary of the GCR-climate theory involves a link between Earth's magnetic field and climate, since the geomagnetic field also modulates the GCR flux reaching Earth's atmosphere. In this study, we explore this potential geomagnetic-climate link by comparing a new reconstruction of the Holocene geomagnetic dipole moment with high-resolution speleothem data from China and Oman. The speleothem δ18O data represent proxy records for past precipitation in low-latitude regions, which is a climate parameter that is likely to have been sensitive to variations in the GCR flux modulated by the dipole moment. Intriguingly, we observe a relatively good correlation between the high-resolution speleothem δ18O records and the dipole moment, suggesting that Earth's magnetic field to some degree influenced low-latitude precipitation in the past. In addition to supporting the notion that variations in the geomagnetic field may have influenced Earth's climate in the past, our study also provides some degree of support for the controversial link between GCR particles, cloud formation, and climate.

Galactic cosmic ray (GCR) changes have been suggested to affect weather and climate, and new evidence is presented here directly linking GCRs with clouds. Clouds increase the diffuse solar radiation, measured continuously at UK surface meteorological sites since 1947. The ratio of diffuse to total solar radiation—the diffuse fraction (DF)—is used to infer cloud, and is compared with the daily mean neutron count rate measured at Climax, Colorado from 1951–2000, which provides a globally representative indicator of cosmic rays. Across the UK, on days of high cosmic ray flux (above 3600×102 neutron counts h−1, which occur 87% of the time on average) compared with low cosmic ray flux, (i) the chance of an overcast day increases by (19±4) %, and (ii) the diffuse fraction increases by (2±0.3) %. During sudden transient reductions in cosmic rays (e.g. Forbush events), simultaneous decreases occur in the diffuse fraction. The diffuse radiation changes are, therefore, unambiguously due to cosmic rays. Although the statistically significant nonlinear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. centennial) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out.

Current concern over ‘greenhouse’ warming and possible human influence upon global climate has been countered by claims that recent advances in solar theory demonstrate a greater role than previously thought for solar forcing in recent climate change. This is still disputed for this century, but new evidence from a range of palaeoenvironmental indicators lends strong support to the notion that not only the long-term (105 to 103 years) climate changes of the Pleistocene but also short-term (101 to 102 years) climate changes in the Holocene may derive in large or small part from solar variability. Evidence from recent research into proxy climate records is reviewed and set in the context of recent advances elsewhere in studies of late Quaternary palaeoenvironments and in solar science.

Not necessarily, as until there is some evidence of an effect there is no connection to add uncertainty.

So the Forbush Decreases probably impacting precipitation, the Diurnal Temperature Range impacts, the remarkable correlation with cloud cover and temperature, and the CERN experiments do not warrant uncertainty?

They warrant investigation, but without some evidence of mechanism the only uncertainity is whatever one wished to believe. I can believe there is a Martian heat ray being used by a spaceship cloaked from detection and claim uncertainty because I have created it in my mind. There is no evidence to support that uncertainty, so in the realm of reality it does not exist yet. If and when there is evidence then the real uncertainty can exist.

Quote:

Quote:

No, the uncertainties in your preferred hypothesis start with the lack of evidence for a mechanism, which is not the case with GHG.

So where is the evidence that Greenhouse Gases are causing Global Warming?

In several hundred years of science, which you ignore in favor of conflicting and unsupprted hypotheses from the blogosphere.

CO2 is a GHG, which is proven in experimentation.GHGs retain energy and warms our planet, which is proven in many ways.CO2 levels have risen dramatically over the last 150 years, which is proven by measurmentsHumanity has released more sequestered CO2 than required for the increase in the atmosphere.

Thus, the theory is formed using real evidence.

Quote:

Quote:

Actually, there is. The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere coupled with the evidence of how GHGs work gives a theory supported by measurements .... unlike the cosmic ray mechanisms.

Ummm, and where's the evidence that they are causing Global Warming?

They have been proven to absorb and re-radiate energy causing the retention of said energy as heat. There are various other lines of evidence to support this theory, such as warming more during night hours.

Quote:

I also sense a double standard brewing over here...

Only in the case of your position.

Quote:

Quote:

The results of the CERN experiments which showed an insufficient level of nucliation for observed climate impact even with the multiplication factors included.

Which is not stated at all anywhere in the paper.

Yes, it is. If it is insufficient to account for the observed nucleation it is insufficient to account for any impact connected with that nuclealtion.

However, even with the large enhancements in rate due to ammonia and ions, atmospheric concentrations of ammonia and sulphuric acid are insufficient to account for observed boundary-layer nucleation.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

They warrant investigation, but without some evidence of mechanism the only uncertainity is whatever one wished to believe. I can believe there is a Martian heat ray being used by a spaceship cloaked from detection and claim uncertainty because I have created it in my mind. There is no evidence to support that uncertainty, so in the realm of reality it does not exist yet. If and when there is evidence then the real uncertainty can exist.

There is plenty of evidence, though.

Quote:

CO2 is a GHG, which is proven in experimentation.GHGs retain energy and warms our planet, which is proven in many ways.CO2 levels have risen dramatically over the last 150 years, which is proven by measurmentsHumanity has released more sequestered CO2 than required for the increase in the atmosphere.

And I can do the same "proof" with the sun.

The sun's activity has correlated with temperatures in the past over various timescales, (See Figure 1) and is known to impact temperatures with an increase in solar radiation, and a cloud decrease from Cosmic Rays.Increased Solar radiation warms the planet, which is a basic fact.Solar activity has dramatically risen over the past 150 years, which is proven by proxies and observations. (See Figure 1)The increase in solar activity will have a profound impact on the atmospheric processes, since in the past it was a powerful climatic driver. (See Figure 2)

(Figure 1) From Figure 6 of Scafetta and West 2007. The strong coherency between solar activity and temperature changes can be observed over the last 400 years.

The similarity between the smoothed d18O and D14Ctime series, both in their general patterns and in the number ofpeaks, is extremely strong. Even millennial-scale trends and relativeamplitudes correspond. Furthermore, the high-resolution intervalbetween 7.9 and 8.3 kyr BP also reveals a close correspondencebetween the two curves. The parallel evolution of d18O and D14Cseems very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Rather, the highcorrelation provides solid evidence that both signals are respondingto the same forcing. Variations of D14C were attributed to changes inthe production rate in the stratosphere, induced by solar windmodulation of the cosmic ray ¯ux. Maxima of 10Be concentrationsin polar ice cores that are synchronous with maxima in D14C furtherreinforce this interpretation6,7,21.The high resolution and dating precision of the d18Orecord of H5make it possible to perform a reliable frequency analysis. Spectralanalyses of the untuned d18O record are given in Fig. 4a and b. Thed18O results show statistically signi®cant periodicities centred on1,018, 226, 28, 10.7 and 9 years. Two broader sets of cycles arecentred between 101±90 years and 35±26 years. These cycles areclose to the periodicities of the tree-ring D14C record (206, 148, 126,89, 26 and 10.4 years), which are assigned to solar modulation7.

So in other words, what you have just done is presented a correlation and not causation, and a proof that CO2 is not causing zero warming. That is nice, but a better proof would be a proof that CO2 is causing most of the warming observed.

Quote:

They have been proven to absorb and re-radiate energy causing the retention of said energy as heat. There are various other lines of evidence to support this theory, such as warming more during night hours.

That is not a fingerprint of AGW due to Greenhouse Gases, as many things, including warmer oceans and urbanization both reduce the Diurnal Temperature Range.

Quote:

Yes, it is. If it is insufficient to account for the observed nucleation it is insufficient to account for any impact connected with that nuclealtion.

No, it does not say that GCRs do not cause a significant change in the nucleation rate in the troposphere or the boundary layer, so your logic is quite flawed.

They warrant investigation, but without some evidence of mechanism the only uncertainity is whatever one wished to believe. I can believe there is a Martian heat ray being used by a spaceship cloaked from detection and claim uncertainty because I have created it in my mind. There is no evidence to support that uncertainty, so in the realm of reality it does not exist yet. If and when there is evidence then the real uncertainty can exist.

There is plenty of evidence, though.

Like of a mechanism? Wait, the CERN experiments showed there was insufficient production even with the compound multipiers.

Quote:

Quote:

CO2 is a GHG, which is proven in experimentation.GHGs retain energy and warms our planet, which is proven in many ways.CO2 levels have risen dramatically over the last 150 years, which is proven by measurmentsHumanity has released more sequestered CO2 than required for the increase in the atmosphere.

And I can do the same "proof" with the sun.

The sun's activity has correlated with temperatures in the past over various timescales, (See Figure 1) and is known to impact temperatures with an increase in solar radiation, and a cloud decrease from Cosmic Rays.

What? Where is the evidence of the mechanism causing that cloud decrease? Not a correlation, but evidence of the specific mechanism.

Quote:

Increased Solar radiation warms the planet, which is a basic fact.Solar activity has dramatically risen over the past 150 years, which is proven by proxies and observations. (See Figure 1)

Except for the recent period where there has been a decrease in solar activity and no corresdponding decrease in temperature. Unless there is some other factor for positive temperature gain, such as GHGs you have a problem.

Quote:

The increase in solar activity will have a profound impact on the atmospheric processes, since in the past it was a powerful climatic driver. (See Figure 2)

(Figure 1) From Figure 6 of Scafetta and West 2007. The strong coherency between solar activity and temperature changes can be observed over the last 400 years.

Note the temperature starts to diverge after the start of the 20th century and is mainly above the scale at the end decade or so.

The similarity between the smoothed d18O and D14Ctime series, both in their general patterns and in the number ofpeaks, is extremely strong. Even millennial-scale trends and relativeamplitudes correspond. Furthermore, the high-resolution intervalbetween 7.9 and 8.3 kyr BP also reveals a close correspondencebetween the two curves. The parallel evolution of d18O and D14Cseems very unlikely to have occurred by chance. Rather, the highcorrelation provides solid evidence that both signals are respondingto the same forcing. Variations of D14C were attributed to changes inthe production rate in the stratosphere, induced by solar windmodulation of the cosmic ray ¯ux. Maxima of 10Be concentrationsin polar ice cores that are synchronous with maxima in D14C furtherreinforce this interpretation6,7,21.The high resolution and dating precision of the d18Orecord of H5make it possible to perform a reliable frequency analysis. Spectralanalyses of the untuned d18O record are given in Fig. 4a and b. Thed18O results show statistically signi®cant periodicities centred on1,018, 226, 28, 10.7 and 9 years. Two broader sets of cycles arecentred between 101±90 years and 35±26 years. These cycles areclose to the periodicities of the tree-ring D14C record (206, 148, 126,89, 26 and 10.4 years), which are assigned to solar modulation7.

The period of natural temperature variations in that period of history should correlate very well. The problem is the recent period.

Quote:

So in other words, what you have just done is presented a correlation and not causation, and a proof that CO2 is not causing zero warming. That is nice, but a better proof would be a proof that CO2 is causing most of the warming observed.

A correlation with an evidenced mechanism is evidence of causation in such a case. Unless you have a duplicate uninhabited planet to use as a control, that is as close as it can get.

Quote:

Quote:

They have been proven to absorb and re-radiate energy causing the retention of said energy as heat. There are various other lines of evidence to support this theory, such as warming more during night hours.

That is not a fingerprint of AGW due to Greenhouse Gases, as many things, including warmer oceans and urbanization both reduce the Diurnal Temperature Range.

Not in areas which are not coastal, not immediately impacted by coastal weather patterns, or are not urban.

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, it is. If it is insufficient to account for the observed nucleation it is insufficient to account for any impact connected with that nuclealtion.

No, it does not say that GCRs do not cause a significant change in the nucleation rate in the troposphere or the boundary layer, so your logic is quite flawed.

It clearly states the measured nucleation rates were insufficient to account for the observed rates in the boundary layer. Thus, the observed nucleation rate and the impact from clouds formed by the observed nucleation rate cannot be attributed to the GCRs. There may be an impact, but not of the magnitude you have claimed. The logic is quite sound.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein